Ancient Future Evangelical

EVANGELICAL THEOLOGIANS FACING THE FUTURE: AN ANCIENT AND A

FUTURE PARADIGM by

Clark H. Pinnock1

Today is a time of opportunity for Christian theology. With the demise of Marxism, no belief system is better placed than ours is to pro-vide a compelling faith and promising vision of the human future. With the crisis of Darwinistic materialism, there is the possibility again of mutual, beneficial relationships between religion and science being restored and the modern mind being re-opened to the truths of religion. With the waves of pentecostal renewal, the prospect exists for a world-wide outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Islam is a serious competitor, but more politically than theologically. Who knows what might happen when the ban on Christianity is lifted in Arab lands? Consider the possible sig-nificance of Christianity for China as its leaders seek the path to modern-ization. There also are the promising new alliances of evangelicals and mainline believers from the spheres of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism. The time is surely ripe for theological advance in the con-text of world mission. With the completion of his systematic theology, Wolfhart Pannenberg is already showing us what is possible. Donald Bloesch is doing the same in a different way. The question iswill we grasp this opportunity for evangelical and Wesleyan theology? I think we

keynote Address, annual meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society, convened at Mount Vernon Nazarene College, Mount Vernon, Ohio, November 7-8,1997.

7

PlNNOCK

can make a contribution if we are willing to grow as hearers of God's Word.

The Evangelical Big Tent Let me speak first about the evangelical big tent and the appropriate-

ness of doing theology under its shade. Many theologians work under this umbrella. It is not a space constituted by a confession, but is a loose coali-tion made up of a great variety of believers who feel religious kinship. Some like myself were "born again" into it through the influences of Billy Graham, the Canadian Keswick Conference, Youth for Christ, Inter Var-sity Christian Fellowship, and so forth, and it was natural for such people to identify with it and work within it. We prefer its broad spaces to the more restrictive quarters of the denominations. We benefit from the fruit-ful interaction of a confluence of traditions. We work, not so much as members of specific traditions, but as participants in a new ecumenical/ evangelical world. What makes a theologian "evangelical" is (minimally) the decision to work in this space, which is so rich in nutrients and has such potential to produce new forms of life and thought. Rather than working exclusively on denominational plots, many are drawn into the larger garden. The identity of an evangelical theologian is defined more sociologically than precisely theologically.2

For example, James W. McClendon, Jr., is thought of more as an evangelical than he was previously because he is now associated with Fuller Seminary. Donald Bloesch is evangelical in many senses, but also because he publishes with InterVarsity Press, while Geoffrey Wainwright is evangelical in many senses, but not in the subculture sense. Nothing theological prevents Wainwright from associating with the evangelical coalition except a preference to work in the mainline/ecumenical context. For Bloesch, it is a wise tactic to associate with InterVarsity Press rather than (say) Westminster/JohnKnox. In the context of a Protestant mainline publisher, he would be viewed as a late-term Barthian and not taken seri-ously. But under the evangelical big tent, what he says feels new and exciting because evangelicals have come so late to an appreciation of Barth. Similarly, Allster McGrath certainly prospers from his identifica-

2I think of evangelicalism as an extended family based on certain resem-blances. Compare Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston, eds., The Variety of American Evangelicalism (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991), chapter 15.

8

EVANGELICAL THEOLOGIANS FACING THE FUTURE

tion with evangelicalism because it gives him a splendid opportunity to describe and give shape to the coming evangelical theology. The evangeli-cal movement, then, is a large and vital circle of people who love God's Word and are open these days to a broader than normal set of voices. This constitutes an opportunity for any renewal-minded theologian and sup-plies a bandwagon well worth the boarding.

Theologians today (like Christians at large) are not as strongly attached to a single tradition or denomination as they once were. We live in an increasingly post-denominational world. God is bringing the church together. Many like myself found faith in the context of evangelicalism (where else are you likely to find it?). Though Baptist (or whatever), we value our evangelical associations more than any denominational ones and derive more stimulation from them, in much the same way as others savor mainline/ecumenical spaces. The rise of the postwar evangelical movement has created a rare opportunity for theologians not to work only in narrow confines, unenriched and ecumenically challenged, but in larger fields and wider rivers which make possible a theology-in-dialogue stimu-lated by the plurality of a new ecclesial situation. We find that rubbing shoulders with people in some ways like ourselves but from other tradi-tions is productive of fresh thinking in us. It brings people together who might not otherwise come together. For example, it is a good thing for dispensationalists to be able to converse with covenant theologians and Calvinists with Wesleyans, nothing being despised.

Not everyone shares my enthusiasm for the big tent. Not all who identify with the evangelical movement see it as the context for theologi-cal work. They are more loyal to sectarian commitments and continue to work as Calvinists, Mennonites, or Wesleyans, etc. Although they appre-ciate cooperative aspects of evangelicalism, they still operate more as denominational theologians. For them, evangelicalism is a network which serves practical purposes, not theological ones. They are concerned about that fact that significantly different theological models and attitudes exist under the big tent and that they might get confused and run together in a sort of mishmash. They think that better work can be done within the established traditions than in a loose and doctrinally chaotic popular reli-gious coalition. The point is well taken, but the fact remains that millions of believers from many denominations do associate together at this time in the movement (however loose and vulnerable the ties). This constitutes a kairos with the potential of theological fruitfulness.

9

PlNNOCK

Evangelicalism is informally constituted by people who feel a sense of kinship and enjoy working together for common goals. Early on it was city evangelism under Billy Graham which brought people together in large numbers, not on the basis of theology, but for the purpose of win-ning others to Christ. It was and remains an informal alliance. Theologi-cally, it is surely a patchwork quilt, kept together more by vital religious experience and commitment to mission than by theological confession. There are doctrinal boundaries, but they are fluid and not closely drawn. The coalition is not without a theological character, but it is more like an ethosspecifically, a post-fundamentalist and anti-liberal ethos. This identity has proved to be a winning ticket in attracting all sorts of people into its sphere, believers who, despite sectarian differences, agree on the impoortance of defending Christianity against liberal theological innova-tions.

When it gets right down to it, evangelicalism is more like a distinc-tive spirituality than a precise theology and it finds it unity in a few basic commitments: fidelity to the biblical message as the supreme norm, belief in a transcendent personal God who interacts with creation and acts in history, belief in the transforming grace of God, and commitment to the mission of bringing the goodness of Jesus Christ to the whole world. There is space here for both theological common ground and rich diver-sity. On the one hand, there are controls stemming from a conservative theological ethos; on the other hand, there are wide-open spaces.

A Movement in Transition The situation, of course, is never static or stable. The broad river of

evangelicalism contains numerous theological currents. There has always been a tension between scholasticism and pietism, between Calvin and Wesley, between the Presbyterian and the pentecostal paradigm. These emphases rise and fall in their influence and do not stay at the same level of strength over time. The key thing to remember in regard to evangelical-ism since the late 1940s is that it was the Presbyterian paradigm that pro-vided the leadership in the first few decades. It thought of itself as supply-ing the normative theology. It was my experience as a young Christian in the 1950s to be directed to Westminster and Fuller seminaries, Carl Henry, Paul Jewett, Kenneth Kantzer, John Gerstner, Gordon Clark, and others for formation in theology. The Wesleyan and pentecostal tenden-cies were appreciated for their vigor, but certainly not for their thought.

10


There has always been a tension between scholasticism and pietism in evangelicalism. In its present form, evangelicalism had beginnings which saw the scholastic impulse on top. To show how strong that still is, the flagship periodical Christianity Today even today has to have its articles approved by two Reformed "watchdogs" (J. I. Packer and Timothy George).

This is not surprising. For one thing, the coalition came out of the fundamentalist/Reformed anti-liberal alliance, which in turn was characterized by a particular set of cultural realities. The modern period, with its emphasis on universal rationality, favored evangelical scholasticism, whereas recent postmodern developments, with an emphasis on the particular and the experiential, favor evangelical pietism. This means that the scholastic approach is declining in influence and the pietist approach is gaining in strength. A shift is underway and the older leaders are worried. Change is seldom painless and there is friction around the changing of the guard. A great deal will depend on how the power issue is handled. Will the old guard surrender power to the new impulse or will they go down fighting?3

Promoting evangelical theology under the big tent runs the risk of stirring old polemics and re-opening old wounds. Banning theology can keep us from each other's throats. Calvinists and Wesleyans (for example) can cooperate in practical causes under the conditions of a truce. Challenging the monopoly of the scholastic impulse, however, runs the risk of letting the sectarian cat out of the bag just when it was under control. But such risk is necessary for the sake of mission and the truth of the gospel. Old issues sometimes have to be re-engaged. Have we given up finding truth? Can progress in theology no longer be made? Can there not be new discoveries and breakthroughs? Like life itself, theology is an adventure. The task is unfinished and the journey beckons.

When I was "born again" into evangelicalism, I did not know its true character as a historically particular movement. I accepted it uncritically as it was and made it my tradition, not aware of its post-fundamentalist and Reformed texture. I just assumed it was the ideal form of Christianity

3From the pietist side, Henry H. Knight gives a hopeful reading in Future of Truth: Evangelical Theology in a Postmodern World (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1997). Speaking for the old guard, Millard Erickson is decidedly nervous in his The Evangelical Left: Encountering Postconservative Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1997).

11

PlNNOCK

and did not reflect on its deficits and peculiarities. I accepted its basic method and theology. Naively, I did not realize that behind the appearance of pluralism among the evangelicals in those early days were powerful theological interests. Specifically there was the scholastic methodology and the deterministic theology of old Princeton which have dominated the movement from the first. This old theology occupied the sort of privileged position in postwar evangelicalism that neo-scholasticism occupied in the Catholicism before Vatican II. It was in a position to equate its views with faith itself and could stand in the way of other positions being advanced. The Reformed cadre has occupied this role among us for some time and to a degree it still does. One sometimes can still hear them mumbling about who is "in" and who is "out" of the movement this year. This keeps them occupied, but also impedes more useful work.

Though I did not realize at first the true nature of postwar evangeli-calism, over time it dawned on me and, more importantly, the movement grew larger and more diverse. A very large contingent of decidedly non-scholastic believers moved into the big tent and now are making it impos-sible for the old guard to control the boundaries. What saved me was a naive acceptance of the "scripture only" rhetoric of evangelicalism. I received the impression from my mentors that one should adhere to the Bible and change one's theology if you must. I was given to believe that prior commitments are in principle reformable by scripture. As time went on, I began to notice certain weaknesses of the prevailing theology, in par-ticular the rational/propositional method and the theological determinism. It became clear to me that if we were to make progress in theology these two problems would have to be addressed. Almost as soon as I began to address them, I realized how shallow the rhetoric of "scripture only" was. Much later I also realized how Wesleyan my moves in method and theism were. For some reason I had to find Wesley for myself in spite of the exis-tence of a vital Wesleyan movement around me. I had to find my own way from the scholastic to the pietist approach.

Reform in Evangelical Theology My thesis is that evangelical theology can contribute to the renewal

of theology under circumstances of reform. There needs to be an improvement in theological method and in the doctrine of God. I think we need to move to a larger concept of method (as represented by the Wes-

12


leyan quadrilateral) and to a more dynamic model of the nature of God (as intimated also in Wesley' s thinking).4

The basic problem in evangelical theology is the rationalist/proposi-tional method. What an irony that what was seen initially as its trump card is in fact detrimental to sound theology. The old guard represented by Carl F. H. Henry would suppose that evangelical theology was born with a solidly rational method that has since been placed in danger. In fact, it was born with a birth defect which is at long last beginning to be corrected. At first, in reaction to liberal theology, the rational method seemed necessary and effective, but now it appears as an obstacle which stands in the way of doing better quality work. The appeal of evangelical-ism never was its method or excellence in theology; its appeal derived from its being consonant with a mood which was pro-classical and anti-liberal. It always had the potential of being fruitful theologically, but the potential was something that would take time to be realized.5

The rational/propositional method as practiced at old Princeton and since defended by scholastic evangelicals embodies a view of revelation consisting chiefly of the doctrinal truths of the Bible. The main task of theology was to systematize these truths into a stable and more or less timeless theology. With a verbatim of God's thoughts in hand, this approach could instill a feeling of high confidence, bolstered by apologet-ics of the hard rationalist variety.6 The Enlightenment strengthened this orientation by encouraging an epistemology which upheld ideals of ratio-nal certainty and unshakable foundations. It encouraged the impulse among conservatives to consider the Bible as the axiom required by the theory and the source of the reliable propositions. It fostered interest in an inerrant Bible as the required source and the basis of its apologetic strat-egy. The Enlightenment ironically influenced both liberal and (in a differ-ent way) conservative theology. It encouraged a method which the practi-

4See, for instance, the excellent work of Barry L. Callen in his systematic theology titled God As Loving Grace (Nappanee, Ind.: Evangel Publishing House, 1996).

5Stanley J. Grenz was one of the first to identify this problem in his Revi-sioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1993).

6On the range of theological models, see Avery Dulles, Models of Revela-tion (New York: Doubleday, 1983).

13

PlNNOCK

tioners thought was ancient, but which was really quite modern.7 Of course, we do look to the Bible for truth and there is a place for system-atizing its contents and spelling out the implications. But the rational/propositional method is deficient both in its retrieval of revelation and its disregard for context.

1. Retrieval of Revelation. The instincts of evangelical theologians are strong in relation to the retrieval of past revelation. Everyone would agree that we need an "ancient" theologyone that is biblical, apostolic, and historically Christian. Against the cultural accommodation of maiin-line Protestantism, we have sounded the note of continuity with the past. We warm to scriptural exhortations like "guard the gospel" and "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints." Our sincere desire is to be true to the teachings of the apostles and not permit human traditions to take precedence over them. Thus the conserving function of theology is val-ued. We want theology to be congruent with Scripture. We resonate with the Formula of Concord: "Holy Scripture alone is acknowledged as the judge, norm, and rule, according to which it is the touchstone by which all doctrines are to be examined and judged" (3:96). One task of theology is to check and be sure that the proclamation of the church is true to the rev-elation of God attested in the Holy Scriptures.

However, the rational/propositional method does not foster a sound retrieval of past revelation. With respect to Scripture, this method reduces the Bible's richness by privileging the propositional dimension. In rela-tion to tradition, it tends to be oblivious to the role tradition plays in inter-pretation. Owing to the rationalist orientation, there is a tendency to downplay the historical situatedness of both text and reader. Respect for the Bible as the inspired medium of divine revelation is no guarantee of fruitful hermeneutical retrieval if we use the Bible as a treasury of doctri-nal and ethical statements to bolster positions we already hold. Even our confessions of faith are frequently proof-texted with a patchwork of bibli-cal citations. The meaning of a text is rarely grasped when quoted out of context or considered without regard for its place in the historical flow of revelation. Revelation is historical and incaraational, and its language

7James Barr pointed to the rationalistic character of evangelicalism in his Fundamentalism (London: SCM Press, 1977). See Nancey Murphy who now has explained how it happened, in Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996).

14


often is poetic and symbolic. Although the Bible contains propositional statements, too much emphasis on this leads to distortion. Scripture is not basically a collection of timeless propositions, but a meta-narrative of the salvation through Christ which has a propositional dimension. It is this richness in the Bible which enables it to speak to the whole range of human experience. There are many approaches to the meaning of texts and types of literature, and evangelicals need to make more use of them. Consider for example the complex way in which the New Testament appeals to the Old; and notice how the New Testament itself is not a homogeneous body of doctrine, but a chorus of voices. The complex polyphony of the Bible requires imaginative judgment and prayerful dis-cernment in order to understand and apply it well.

One issue of great importance is the need to recognize the primacy of narrative in scripture. A unique vehicle of truth, it is neglected by the rational-propositional method because it is too open-ended.8 God is not self-revealed in history by means of timeless propositions. To miss this fact threatens dimensions of richness and mystery. Recovering narrative does not mean giving up on doctrinal passages, but attending to the story on which the doctrinal texts are reflecting. Evangelicals have difficulty handling the richness of Scripture. They love epistles, but barely tolerate narrative and are downright suspicious of symbols. The liberal tendency to see revelation as chiefly illuminating inner experiences has caused evangelicals to conceptualize revelation in a form that is chiefly informa-tional. This often causes evangelicals to miss the obvious fact that revela-tory knowledge is not normally imparted in Scripture through proposi-tional discourse, but through the symbolic patterns which are carried forward by liturgies. Symbols are not a less effective medium of commu-nication which have to be subordinated to the propositional dimension but contain a plenitude of meaning that surpasses discursive speech and draws us into whole worlds of meaning. Perhaps they are ignored because sym-bols allow for a greater diversity than in what is (incorrectly) called "sci-entific" theology.

The Bible is not a collection of propositions, each of which is be taken as a divine assertion, but contains a variety of forms and conven-tions and is filled with poetry and metaphor. Scripture grasps us more

8Alister McGrath makes a strong appeal for evangelicals to recognize the primacy of the biblical narrative for theology. See Passion for Truth: The Intel-lectual Coherence of Evangelicalism (InterVarsity Press, 1996), 105-116.

15

PlNNOCK

often than not by its suggestive power than by its logic. In this way it speaks to the believer's situation here and now. The propositional approach to theology is imposed on Scripture rather than arising from Scripture. It was shaped more by tradition and philosophical influences than by the biblical text itself. Even the concern for inerrancy has less to do with interpretation than with the apologetic role it is being assigned.

In relation to tradition, rational/propositionalism falls short because the emphasis is on working objectively. This is ironic since one might have supposed that having a scripture principle would foster scrupulous honesty about non-biblical influences on its interpretation. In fact, what it often fosters is the illusion that we read Scripture unaffected by our con-text and place in history. Wayne Grudem amuses when, having presented a 17th century dogmatic, he subtitles his book An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. By ignoring the influence of tradition on our work, we are tempted to claim unwarranted certainties for our conclusions and perhaps even look down on those of a different opinion who must be laboring under the weight of prejudice.

The historical situatedness of all theology operates whether it is rec-ognized or not, and when not recognized, its influence is greater. Because of an idealized view of past revelation and our human ability to retrieve it, we tend to be unclear, not only about the Bible's place in history, but also our own. We therefore tend to deceive ourselves into thinking of our own interpretations as pure biblical doctrine and the views of others as morally suspect. Disregarding tradition does not eliminate its effects but only lets them function under wraps. It frees people to select a strand of the past and privilege it. It makes disciples prisoner to that segment of history and short-circuits growth beyond it. It can even lead us to reject other people affected by some other segment. Traditions can be what is really at stake without either side knowing it. As Charles Kraft has taught us, reality is mediated to us through the grid of world-views, and the essence of faith is always mixed up with historical form. Every theology combines the essence of religion with particular forms. Even evangelical versions of Christianity grow out of particular situations.

Neglecting the role of tradition can also make us insensitive to philo-sophical influences. Few evangelicals reflect on the fact that early Greek theology was deeply impacted by the great Hellenes. We often deny such influence while continuing to read the Bible under its influence. We allow Greek categories to guide our exegesis instead of bringing them under the

16


critique of Scripture. Stubborn adherence to philosophical influences does not serve God's revelation. It allows philosophy to play an undue role in theology, even when philosophy presumably is being ignored. It hinders us from seeking better philosophical conceptualities. Why do evangelicals keep using ancient philosophies which lack revelational status and poorly express the dynamic biblical categories? Does this indebtedness to Greek ideas have to be permanent? Can there not be dialogue with other philo-sophical traditions which are more in touch with modern sensibilities a well as more open to biblical thinking?

Evangelical theologians are not insincere in their desire to retrieve past revelation, but they can be smug about the quality of their retrieval. We need to learn to read both the Bible and tradition in richer ways and not disregard the role which history plays in them both. Scripture and tra-dition present us with an overwhelmingly rich abundanceare we not like guests at a sumptuous feast? Let us welcome one another and listen to what each has to say. Let us sample new foods, learn new cuustoms, and (above all) trust and love one another more. It was understandable in the early days of postwar evangelicalism that we entertained the myth of ourselves alone possessing the truthprivileging our own thinking helped us survive as a movement. But the time has come to take a huumbler atti-tude and place ourselves in the larger stream in which our witness needs to take place. With maturity, hopefully there will be more modesty as well.

2. Disregard for Context. Evangelical theology is not very adept at relating to contexts. If there is weakness in retrieving past revelation, the situation is worse in regard to recognizing present illumination. Again this is probably due to the supposed objectivity of the method and the fact that liberal theology is active in areas of relevance. Our rational method makes us suppose that we do not need and the polemical situation makes us feel that we cannot afford to listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches now. This is obviously wrongwe must be open to discovering the mean-ing of revelation for the present and to be thinking with the mind of Christ in relation to fresh challenges. One of the tasks of theology is to present the truth as a living reality for the present time.

To put it in a nutshell, the classic evangelical method is overly mono-polar and relatively indifferent to issues of contextnot immune to their influence, of course, only indifferent. This is the tendency that

17

PlNNOCK

slights the Spirit and is not adequately mindful of the relevance of contex-tual factors. It privileges one polethe supposedly timeless truths of rev-elation deposited in the Bibleand refuses to recognize a second. It pre-tends to work with the data of revealed propositions as if they are not co contextually affected. Somehow it is conveniently forgotten that revela-tion is incarnational, embedded in history, and that theology must engage culture in order to hear God's word and communicate it effectively.9

The basis of the contextual pole is the promise of Christ to guide us into fuller truth in regard to revelation (Jn. 16:13). The Paraclete was given to meet the need created by the death of the apostles. Believers are not to be left orphaned because the Spirit will dwell in their midst, not only to mediate the divine presence, but to be the source of continuing illumination. Determining the authorial intent of a text cannot decide the timeliness of application. The Spirit does not give new revelation so much as cause everything to be revealed in a new light. Changing circumstances require timely applications and a church on mission must be able to grasp the significance of the gospel message for its situation. Theology must be able to say important things that matter for the present time. Continuing inspiration is needed because the goal of the original inspiration of the Bible was to transform readers. Scripture fails if it remains a dead letter and does not impact people. It is the property of classic texts that they can open up in the presence of new readers. By means of them, God leads his people toward the consummation of the age. The Spirit helps us penetrate the Word and integrate it with our own pilgrimage through time.

This may explain the relative dearth of ethical instruction in John's Gospelbecause the Spirit is given to help the church work out its own salvation. The Spirit helps us to shape our lives in obbedience to the gospel as we confront new circumstances. The ethical direction is clear from the moral vision of the gospel, but not all the applications of the vision. Living within a world shaped by the Jesus' story, the community of faith wrestles with challenges of understanding and enactment. How we respond in the obedience of faith is not a function of written instruc-tions only, but also of a Spirit-discerned and empowered conformity to Jesus Christ. The church is called to act in creative freedom to become a

9Usually evangelicals are warned about syncretism and the dangerous influ-ence of contexts. It is refreshing to hear Harvey Conn warn against neglecting cir-cumstantial issues when doing theology (Westminster Theological Journal

18


living sacrifice. The Spirit alerts the community to truths not yet flagged and causes fresh light to break forth from God's Word. What allows this to happen is the richness of Scripture, replete as it is with narrative and symbol as well as propositions. Thus it is that even today we find that new possibilities can get onto the agenda of theology.10

The Bible does not present a simple and homogeneous body of doc-trine and/or ethics. It supplies a chorus of diverse but finally harmonious voices. It presents us with a range of insight without telling us which emphasis is the one for today. For example, which nuance of Christology, which model of atonement, which aspect of the moral vision is most cru-cial at the moment? The Bible is not a book of rules as rational/proposi-tionalism construes it. We do not just ask whether there is a rule anywhere about slave owning or women ruling or hope for the unevangelized. Cru-cial matters are not decided in such a simple way, but rather by digging deeper into the flow of Scripture, tuning one's ears to the Spirit, and opening the heart wider to the ways of God among us now.

Remember with sadness how Charles Hodge defended slavery on the basis of biblical proof-texts. It was not too hard to show that it was instituted by God, part of Israel's national life, and approved by the apos-tles. Hodge's opponents were forced to appeal to historical factors, deeper moral principles, progressive revelation, and God's leading here and now. How easy it was for conservatives to charge such opponents with setting themselves above the plain teachings of the Bible. Yet Hodge was proved wrong by the leading of God in the communities of faith. Quoting the Bible is not everythingthere also is interpretation in which self-serving opinions must be confronted, ddetails examined, and God's will tested. We have all concluded that the continuation of slavery as a social institu-tion is not justified, but we came to that conclusion by wrestling with the issue in context, not staring at the rules. It was decided biblically and prayerfully, but not propositionally.11

Evangelical theology is not strong in the area of timeliness because the propositional method is afraid when contexts become a factor. It con-centrates on being in continuity with past revelation, not on intelligibility, relevance, and innovation. It fears new ideas which might possibly be

10On ethics in John's Gospel, see Richard B. Hayes, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper/SanFrancisco, 1996), chap. 6.

1]LSometimes being "postconservative," Millard Erickson's phrase, is the right thing to be.

19

PlNNOCK

"worldly," merely human ideas. The faculty of old Princeton took pride in never teaching anything new; but Scripture is ever new and is always becoming a fresh text. Good retrieval requires an act of the imagination which integrates text and context. When we appeal to the authority of the Bible, we place ourselves within the world of the text and have to imagi-natively improvise (as it were) the themes that we hear. We have to hear the text as something addressed to us. The idea that we could limit our-selves to one pole, to Scripture "alone" (which always was an illusion because interpretation never occurs in a vacuum), mislead us. Scripture is always read by interpreters under the influence of a tradition which uses its own reasoning and experience. No-one comes from no-where. We are always reading the Bible out of a setting and relating to a setting. It is self-deceptive to claim only to be using one pole in theological method. Of course, the church depends on the revelation communicated by Scrip-ture, but its meaning and significance unfolds in the history of its interpre-tation.

The contextual pole is important because the truth is meant to engage people. Bible doctrines are not abstractions, but timely witnesses whose current significance is to be grasped in our settings. We are warned about tithing mint and cummin while neglecting weightier matters of the law. Jesus condemns leaders who knew weather patterns but not the time of God' s visitation. Theology is meant to engage life and produce fruitful effects. The gospel is not abstract truth, locked in the past, and the province of antiquarians. It is the power of God unto salvation now. God is not a distant law- giver who forces on us concepts which are alien and un-illuminating of our situation. God's Word speaks to where we are now and is meant to evoke a response in us. Theology historically has always been mindful of society and culture, even as Scripture itself was mindful of it. Good theology is never articulated in an ivory tower out of touch with times and places. Christianity is incarnational. God expresses him-self not in general truths, but as a human being. The Word became flesh in order to be visible and intelligible and theology too must make itself heard in human situations.

When revelation is understood in terms of timeless truths framed in divinely-given language, as in the propositional method, theology tends to be thought of as unchanging and unaffected by history and culture. Reve-lation is a richer realityit is the personal self-offering of God and an offer of friendship and loving relationships. It relates dynamically to real

20


people. God revealed himself in ways that made sense to Israel in ancient times and later on to the non-Jewish Christians. God's gift was one that always entered real human contexts.12

Theology is charged with (re)-contextualizing the truth of revelation for present situations and expressing it in current forms of thought, so that the Bible might speak today as it did in the past. Though content does not change, communication changes and the search for better formulations never ceases. Theology is always an unfinished task. The expression of its truth will differ from culture to culturedifferent motifs will be noticed and accented because truth participates in a mission which involves two-way contextualizationhe gospel is contextualized for people in their world and at the same time subjects cultural experience to the will of God. Here the diversity of the Bible, which is so uncomfortable for propositionalism, proves to be a positive resource for the church on mis-sion because it can open itself to ever new and unexpected insights.

In terms of philosophy, theology is never done without making use of contemporary resources. In the past theologians have used Greek assets for Christian metaphysics. Aquinas constructed an impressive and influ-ential theistic vision on the basis of a Platonized form of Aristotelianism. With Vatican II the dominance of his model was challenged and Catholic theologians are now freer to employ other categories. Evangelicals, on the other hand, lacking a hierarchy to decide such things, still struggle over whether they have liberty to use other intellectual tools which might serve better the dynamic biblical picture of God. We are still stuck at the stage where it is acceptable to use the ancient Hellenes, but not the modern Europeans.13

In terms of science, relations with theology were once harmonious, but in modern times have been disrupted by a number of crises. However, theology needs to be in dialogue with science since it is so important in modern culturethe warfare has gone on much too long. What has been discoovered about nature must be integrated with the biblical message.

12Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1992), chap. 1.

13Norman L. Geisler sets forth a Thomistic doctrine of God, goes on to make observations about the openness model, and concludes that the free-will theists are nearly guilty of idolatry. See his Creating God in the Image of Man? The New Open View of GodNeotheism's Dangerous Driftt (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1997).

21

PINNOCK

This is beginning to happen both with Christians in science making new moves and the scientific establishment being more effectively challenged to drop its absurd naturalistic bias. A new era of interaction is beginning.14

Evangelicals have to get over their fears bora in the fundamentalist/ modernist controversies. The specter of liberalism has kept us long enough from celebrating new possibilities and has robbed us of confidence in our imaginations. It has made us suspicious of new suggestions and even grumpy and mean-spirited at times. A new idea often gets greeted with fear-filled phrases like: "This is a dangerous trend" or "Does this cross over the line?" We seem to have lost the ability to believe that in some respects theology might actually move closer to the truth in our day. The fear of timeliness is debilitating and frustrates the ability to engage our generation. I am not advocating exegetical relativism or attempting to introduce worldly ideas into theology. I want to see us do better work and have deeper biblically-based convictions. With a little methodological mat-uration, there would be fewer failures and more achievements.15

Reform in the Doctrine of God Another major area ripe for reform, a reform which could liberate

evangelical theology in significant ways, is the doctrine of God. Postwar evangelicalism was dominated by deterministic theology in which God was seen as all-controlling, the One who ordains all things. This was stan-dard fare in Gordon Clark and Carl Henry, in John Gerstner and Paul Jew-ett, in Cornelius Van Til and John Murray. It was a power-centered theol-ogy requiring deterministic freedom and no-risk providence. It is still being well articulated, but seems to be declining in influence within evan-gelicalism, both intellectually and demographically.16 It is a difficult posi-tion to hold biblically, philosophically, or practically and it is being effec-

14A helpful voice is John Polkinghorne, Serious Talk: Science and Religion in Dialogue (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995).

15The best methodology in my opinion, and the one toward which I have been drawn over the years, is called the "Wesleyan quadrilateral." See Donald A. D. Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) and W. Stephen Gunter, et al, Wesley and the Quadrilateral: Renewing the Conversa-tion (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997).

16For an excellent statement of theological determinism by Paul Helm, see The Providence of God (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1994). Interest-ingly, this book was issued by the same press in the same year as its opposite number, The Openness of God by Clark Pinnock and others.

22


tively eclipsed by the influx of Christians whose reformers are John Wes-ley and C. S. Lewis, rather than Martin Luther and John Calvin.

This truth came home to me in 1970 while reading the Bible. It sud-denly dawned on me that there is a reciprocity between God and the world which classical theism does not make enough room for. I was struck by this verse in Hebrews and similar verses: "The good news came to us just as to them; but the message they heard did not benefit them because it was not mixed with faith in the hearers" (Heb. 4:2). I came to see that God is interactive with creatures in time. God responds to what happens and makes his plans in relation to it. I realized that God, though having clear purposes, does not ordain every detail of history. I was drawn to a love-centered theology, with room for real freedom and risky provi-dence.17 I was responding to one of the tasks of theology which is to grow in understanding and give more adequate expression to the whole truth of a very rich revelation of God.

The issue is an old one and the differences runs deep. Christians have always wondered how God can be supreme over the world and (at the same time) intimately involved in history. In the past, under the influ-ence of Greek thought, theology has over-emphasized transcendence at the cost of depreciating God's personal nature and relations with creation. It gave the impression of God as a remote Being, a metaphysical iceberg, alienating of human significance. Today everywhere there is the sense that modifications are required on aspects of the doctrine of God. Evangelicals with their keen sense of the relationality of God are in a good position to help, though it remains to be seen whether the influence of tradition can be overcome in some of these ways.18

The trinitarian openness model proposes to modify classical theism and bring the doctrine of God more into line with the biblical portrayal of a personal God, while at the same time enhancing the intelligibility of the Christian message in the modern world.19 The model arises from a read-

17I tell the story of my change of mind in The Grace of God, The Will of Man (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1995, first published in 1989), chap. 1. The end-point of my journey is found in The Openness of God (Downers Grove 111.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994). A pilgrimage can take a while! 18

Vincent Brummer captures the underlying issue in Speaking of a Personal God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

19For a contemporary discussion on the social trinity, see John Thompson, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).

23

PINNOCK

ing of the gospel narrative and captures the contemporary sense of the dynamism of reality. Though an ancient theme, the trinity doctrine fasci-nates contemporary theologians and philosophers because of the way it envisages loving relationality at the heart of the universe, the perfection of love in a God whose nature consists of three persons in communion. It is the very antithesis of self-sufficiency and the symbol of loving, interact-ing relationships. More than a mere doctrine, it signals a new Christian way to be human in the world by calling for embodied life which reflects God's own social reality. The social trinity may prove to be the key for the metaphysical understanding of how God can be both transcendent and genuinely responsive to events in the world.20

How could an ancient symbol like the trinity become available in such a fresh way for today? Why was it not already exhausted by now? One reason goes back to the neglect of the biblical narrative. Often theolo-gians have not looked to narrative to give perspectives on how to construe doctrinal texts and have missed (in this case) the social interactions of the divine persons in the Jesus' story. Another reason is the stubborn commit-ment to hellenistic ideals of divine perfection which take exception to the liveliness of trinitarian existence. Under influences of Greek philosophy, the idea of God as a communion of dynamic persons was overshadowed by the idea of God as pure actuality. It was made difficult even to think of God having "give and take" reciprocal relations with the world. God was never supposed to change vis--vis the world, although the world changes in relation to him. God was thought not to be affected by anything that happens in the world lest it disturb his serene unchangeableness. The result was the classical model which makes God remote and almost indifferent to what happens on earth. How very different it is from the biblical picture of God who responds to our prayers and rejoices when a lost son returns home. And how tragically problematic that it often does not incline people toward a valuing of the significance of human life.

20Gregory A. Boyd, Trinity and Process: A Critical Evaluation and Recon-struction of Hartshorne's Di-Polar Theism, Towards a Trinitarian Metaphysics (New York: Peter Lang, 1992) and Joseph A. Bracken and Marjorie H. Suchocki, editors, Trinity in Process: A Relational Theology of God (New York: Contin-uum, 1997). On this point, for the time being, evangelical theologians like Boyd who show interest in selected process insights can expect to be labeled process theists, howbeit unfairly. In Boyd's case, there are moves afoot to have him removed from his position at Bethel College on the grounds that he is a non-evan-gelical.

24


But what a beautiful picture of God the social trinity supplies. The model allows for being and becoming in God. It envisages God being enriched by the being and becoming of the world. It sees God as an event of everlasting movement and dance which embraces the becoming of the world in its own trinitarian becoming. It does not see God as a solitary Ego, but as a communion of shared love. This model celebrates the sublime mutuality of personal interaction and at the same time sheds light on who we are and what the world is. It explains the subtle interactivity of nature, the social character of human life, and even the gift of incarnation which can now be viewed, not as a puzzling paradox, but as the characteristic gesture of a loving and self-emptying God.21

In a delightful way, the ancient trinitarian symbol of orthodoxy has become full of life and meaning for today. It holds out a vision of the divine beauty, not of some static being beyond us, unconcerned with us, unrelated to us. It pictures God as movement and communion which overflows into the world and invites us to participate in the divine nature. In a disposition of sheer benevolent openness, the triune God not only wills his own social existence, but desires to mirror it in the sociality of the created order. Thus the world itself is an expression of the overflow of God's delight with his own triune fellowship. The model of the trinitarian openness of God is just one example of the sort of theological fruitfulness which can result from using sounder methods in theology. It can help theology tell the story of Jesus more persuasively, with the promise that more and more people will make it their own story.

What kind of reception will this model get from theologians under the evangelical big tent? How will evangelicals handle this piece of theological creativity from their own colleagues? In his review of The Openness of God (1994), Roger Olson asked: "Have we become of age enough to avoid heresy charges and breast-beating jeremiads in response to a new doctrinal proposal that is so conscientiously based on biblical reflection rather than on rebellious accommodation to modern thought? This may be the test."22

There are reasons why the proposal ought to be welcomed, but there are also reasons why it may not be. First, the model has strengths bibli-

21A book which lives up to its name is Colin E. Gunton's The Promise of Trinitarian Theology (Edinburgh: & Clark, 1993).

^Christianity Today, January 9, 1995, 32. The negative tone of all the ensuing responses that followed Olson's view (by Douglas Kelly, Timothy George, and Allster McGrath) are not reassuring.

25

PINNOCK

cally, though it contradicts traditional exegesis which has been influenced by classical theism. It lifts up the dynamic portrait of God in the Scrip-tures and celebrates the social trinity, both of which have suffered much neglect. Nevertheless, by endorsing divine/world relationships which impact both parties and in proposing notions such as God taking risks in providence, it will inevitably collide with the classical synthesis and force evangelicals to make a choice between the God of the Bible and the God of the Greek philosophers. For all their talk about biblical authority, not to say inerrancy, I still wonder if the Bible will manage to win out among the evangelicals.23

Second, in terms of God's attributes, the trinitarian openness model is theologically productive. It can articulate the perfections of a personal God and challenge the tendencies to depersonalization in the tradition. It exposes theology that is the one-sided in favor of transcendence and gives rise to expressions which we have long needed, such as God's self-surrendering power.24 While exciting many, the charge will be made that it "shrinks" God, which from a hellenistic point of view it does. Critics will zero in par-ticularly on the issue of present divine knowledge. The idea of God not knowing the future exhaustively is a new thought for orthodoxy and will attract strong resistance, even though it can appeal to many biblical intima-tions that the future is open for God to some degree (e.g., Ezek. 12:1-3; Jer. 3:7; etc.). On reflection, it may have been unwise to have linked the model of openness to the theory of present knowledge because the key issue is not omniscience, but personal and reciprocal relations between God and crea-tures. Specifically, the openness model runs the risk of dividing the propo-nents of openness from the classical Arminians and giving the Reformed critics a rift to work on. Nevertheless, I believe that present knowledge is the biblical view of God's knowledge and I accept the risks. The Arminian tradition, like the Reformed, is an evolving one and I believe will see that the model of the openness of God is the way to go.25

23A superb biblical study which brings out the openness of God clearly is Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).

24Karl Barth began rethinking the categories and Hendrikus Berkhof has described the results in Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), chaps. 18-22.

25Fretheim lays out the biblical basis for the idea of the present knowledge of God in The Suffering of God, chap. 4.

26


Third, in relation to philosophy, the openness model challenges the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian theology and calls for more dynamic ways of thinking about God. The critics are rightnot just the Bible but philosophy enters into this debate. What they generally mean is that openness theists are flirting with process theologians. But the real problem is otherwise. Traditional theology has been wedded (even when it was Arminian) to Greek views of divine unchangeability which are in sharp tension with thinking of God as personal and relational. For some reason, people are very attached to this piece of intellectual tradition, usu-ally without being aware of it as a tradition or reflecting on how unscrip-tural it is. I suppose it is attractive because it delivers (or appears to deliver) a high degree of security in the divine planning. To that extent it stands in the way of people fully appreciating the vision of God's dynamic interactions with die world and the risks entailed. I have little doubt, however, which is the winning ticket. Theism cannot continue to do its work against the horizon of ancient metaphysics. Sooner or later we will have to join modern experience. The fact is that we need a resource which can help us put love in the center of theology. Plato cannot help usmaybe Whitehead can.

Fourth, the openness of God model has enormous practical strengths. Think of the motivation it provides by its insistence that our lives really matter and that we are the way God's will gets done on earth! This explains why ordinary Christians tend naturally to be "openness the-ists" because it is next to impossible to function in any other way. If God has ordained every detail of history, why do anything? Prayer (for exam-ple) implies a give-and-take model of the God/world relationship, if indeed God responds to the cries of his people. What a difference it makes if our lives affect God's plans and if what we do really matters! How important for our walk with God to know if the routes of providence are still open. How important to know whether God relates to us as per-sons or manipulates us. How can classical theism possibly handle the problem of evil, since so much of it proves that a good God cannot be the ultimate cause of everything on earth? Openness theism on the other hand does not see God in omni-causal terms and is not afflicted by these partic-ular difficulties. One of the real contributions of openness theism is the way it resolves the tension and disparity between evangelical experience (dynamic) and evangelical theology (usually undynanc). Our hearts place love at the center, but not our formal theologies because they are prevented from doing so by philosophical assumptions.

27

PINNOCK

In the area of the doctrine of God, there are fears to overcome. Besides the standard evangelical fear of theological change that comes from the liberal trauma, there is the fear involved in the area of trust. Lit-tle trust is needed if God is a metaphysical iceberg, but a good deal is needed if there is a living God. One of the attractions of classical theism is its view of history as all sewed up, but it is not an attraction we should be encouraging. God calls us to follow him on a pilgrimage into the open future.

Conclusion A great opportunity exists for fruitfulness in theology and evangeli-

cal theologians can certainly contribute to it. If thus far their contributions have been minimal, were they to correct certain of their weaknesses, they would be in a strong position to help. Distancing ourselves from ratio-nal/propositionalism and theological/omni-causalism would take us far in the direction of wider engagements and larger visions.26 What is required is that we grow as hearers of the Word of God and accept the sometimes painful consequences of growing up. I love the evangelical heritage, but have been burdened by its difficulties my whole life. They have set me off on tangents and prevented me from doing the quality of work that I would have wished. Fortunately, a whole new generation of evangelicals is rising which recognizes these problems and will be able to transcend them ever more effectively. Theology is an unfinished task and a venture in hope. May it be that our vision of truth will be continually enlarged through interaction with others on the way to fullness of life in the future of God.

26Were I to add a third area of reform, it would be to make the Holy Spirit as central in theology as it is in biblical thinking. Perhaps it will be the pente-costals in the ranks of the new pietists who will improve this matter. In the mean-time, I have had some thoughts. See my Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1996).

28

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Ancient Future Evangelical

Documents

Transcript of Ancient Future Evangelical